This post is about a very tragic event and the aftermath, involving a man who killed his own father whilst seriously mentally ill and his sister’s subsequent forgiveness. Adam Merritt was found unfit to stand trial at Peterborough Crown Court after being charged with murder. He had lived with schizophrenia since he was a teenager and his father Rob acted as his main carer whilst they lived together. One evening whilst very unwell, Adam attacked Rob Merritt who died of stab wounds.
He was found to be unfit to stand trial during criminal proceedings, which then means there had to be a “trial of the facts” to determine whether Adam “did the act” resulting in Rob’s death. This post is mainly about explaining the point of this odd-sounding legal process and the difference between unfit to plead and insanity – despite the fact that both outcomes can and usually do lead to the same outcome at court, a restricted hospital order.
Insanity means that someone is not criminally responsible for their actions – they did not know what they were doing or did not know what they were doing was wrong, because of mental illness. To reach an outcome of not guilty by reason of insanity, there must be a criminal trial during which the court reaches the view the insanity criteria are met. But this obviously means there must be a criminal trial and for that to occur, the defendant must be able to follow the legal proceedings and to instruct their legal counsel.
If someone is not well enough to do this, then they cannot be tried, full stop. This is where unfitness to plead comes in – sometimes referred to as unfit to stand trial, which is the same thing. Someone could be insane and / or unfit to stand trial so an easy way to remember this is –
- Insanity is about someone’s mental health at the time of the offence – so it could be the case that someone recovers sufficiently by the time of their trial and can instruct their counsel. This is what happened with Alexander Lewis-Ranwell, who was found not guilty of murder in 2019 after the deaths of three elderly men.
- Unfitness is about their mental health at the time of trial – so someone could be mentally well at the time of their alleged offending, but be unfit at the time of trial. This is what happened to Lord Janner who was accused of serious, historic sexual offending. By the time of prosecution many years later, he was badly affected by dementia and could not be tried.
WHAT’S A TRIAL OF THE FACTS?!
So if someone is unfit to plead, why is there a trial of the facts and what does that involve? Well, someone either did or didn’t do the thing they’re accused of. With someone who is fit to stand trial, they enter a plea and if that is “not guilty”, there is a trial to determine their guilt. If guilty, they’re punished in some way, but if not, they walk free. It remains true that a mentally ill person may not have done what they’re accused of doing, albeit in Adam’s case here, he rang the police to confess the offence and remained at the house until officers arrived and various key pieces of evidence were recovered, including the weapon used from a kitchen sink.
But what if a mentally ill person had been accused of something they had not done? If someone had in fact committed a serious act of violence or sexual violence but then been found insane or unfit to stand trial, it’s obviously important the court consider what action may be necessary to protect the public until they are well. This is what a restricted hospital order is for – it is detention without limit of time to protect the public. A trial of the facts is intended to ensure that no-one is subject to such an invasive, unending detention order unless a court has confirmed they actually did the action which necessitates some public protection.
Of course, a mentally ill defendant who is found not have committed the action may still be ‘sectioned’ under the Mental Health Act 1983 if they require inpatient treatment for serious mental illness but these ‘civil’ orders under Part II of the Act are much less restrictive and allow patients far greater leeway to appeal their detention or have its necessity reviewed.
In this case: Adam was found unfit to stand trial by a jury, so a second jury then have to consider whether he “did the action” which resulted in his father’s death. Because they confirmed, sadly, that he had, he was given a restricted hospital order.
FORGIVENESS
The BBC coverage of this emphasised his sister Sarah’s forgiveness for killing their father and its heart-rending to read. Having received the knock on the door which is everyone’s nightmare, she suddenly learned the father she spoke to on the phone every day was no longer here. She detailed how Rob had cared for his son “from day one” and had arranged to live with Adam again to care for him after he became unwell – this is something which also made him unwell with his own mental health. The article says Adam was “known” to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mental Health Trust, but that leaves ambiguous the question of whether he was actively under their care.
I’m going to guess that he was because he was in receipt of anti-psychotic medication and he’d stopped taking it two weeks prior the killing. The night before the attack, he’d taken another dose of it. Sarah expressed concern about her brother’s care stating she felt he was being “let down” and “not being seen by any professionals, not having regular visits or checks on his and how he was doing in his mind or taking medication. If Adam had the help from professionals, maybe he could have spoken to them, if he knew in his mind what he potentially could do, maybe then they could have helped him.”
It’s just all kinds of sad and there will be reviews, inquiries and inquests in to the background factors which brought about the death of a caring father who obviously loved his son.
Winner of the President’s Medal,
the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Winner of the Mind Digital Media Award
All opinions expressed are my own – they do not represent the views of any organisation.
(c) Michael Brown, 2023
I try to keep this blog up to date, but inevitably over time, amendments to the law as well as court rulings and other findings from inquests and complaints processes mean it is difficult to ensure all the articles and pages remain current. Please ensure you check all legal issues in particular and take appropriate professional advice where necessary.
Government legislation website – www.legislation.gov.uk
Mental Health Cop 